White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

What the Immigration Debate Really Should Be About

/7 Comments/in , , , /by

Editor’s note: It strikes me that until we talk explicitly about racial/ethnic genetic interests, we cannot win. The 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was based on an explicit assertion of an ethnic status quo which assumed that each group currently in the country had an interest in maintaining their ethnic representation. The Boasian attack on the concept of race, continuing now as an article of faith among all elites in the West, is the most powerful weapon against White interests and the continuation of the West as anything remotely resembling the civilization of a particular people. This consensus against mentioning White racial interests is vigorously policed in the media, the political arena, and even in most positions of employment.  Ted Sallis argues that, as the result of losing this battle, conservatives launch a host of arguments, many of which are likely veiled attempts to retain White demographic predominance; but these arguments will inevitably fail.  When conservatives bewail what has happened while at the same they time reject Darwinism, they should realize that it was the successful attack on Darwinism that is the greatest intellectual disaster for Whites and their civilization. Kevin MacDonald

I have previously written about the ongoing immigration amnesty travesty.  Since that essay, there have been some stirrings of rebellion against the Establishment’s promotion of immigrant interests vs. that of native White Americans.  These stirrings have not yet been particularly effective.  However, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding this legislation, I note that the arguments on both sides strictly hold to aracial concerns.  It seems that no one is “getting it.”  Let’s take a look at some of the common immigration arguments, particularly from the anti-amnesty side, and evaluate why they ultimately miss the point. Read more

Jason Richwine on IQ and Immigration

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

The Jason Richwine saga is a critical barometer of the political climate of our times. As everyone knows by now, he resigned from his position at the Heritage Foundation after his involvement in a report on the economic costs of immigration (since strongly endorsed by Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, writing in National Review Online). As Richwine said in his interview with the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, his Ph.D. research on how IQ affects the social and economic costs of immigration had nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation report.

This is nothing more than a guilt by association smear campaign aimed at putting yet another nail in the coffin of White America. It is an index of the power of the left that they need not dispute the economic effects of the Schumer-Rubio bill; nor do they need to rebut the data and conclusions of Richwine’s Ph.D. thesis. They simply need to make the linkage between Richwine and taboo findings—that IQ predicts economic success, underclass behavior, and use of government services so that importing low-IQ immigrants is a very bad idea. Having made these associations, they can indulge in smug sociopathic satisfaction because a young man with a wife and two young children is suddenly out of work and with much diminished prospects in life.

Richwine’s Ph.D. thesis was approved by a Harvard committee, but it’s clear that the real force behind it was Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve. In the Acknowledgements section of his thesis, Richwine describes Murray as a “childhood hero”; Murray seems to have been his de facto thesis advisor at  Harvard:

The substance of my work was positively influenced by many people, but no one was more influential than Charles Murray, whose detailed editing and relentless constructive criticism have made the final draft vastly superior to the first. I could not have asked for a better primary advisor.

So it’s not surprising that Richwine’s thesis takes seriously the work of Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen—the main figures in academic research on race and IQ. Although he also considers criticisms that have been leveled against them, it’s clear that Richwine sees this body of  work as basically correct.
Read more

Facing the Future as a Minority

/1 Comment/in , /by

This speech was delivered at the 2013 American Renaissance conference, which took place on April 5–7 near Nashville, Tennessee.  It was posted originally at the website of the National Policy Institute

casperFriedrich

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

For people like us—who are asylumed away to the margins—one could say that immigration is our connection to the outside world.  It makes us feel like we have a horse in the race—maybe even that, through our silent partners in the Beltway, we can affect national policy.  We even, we should admit, get captivated by the political theater of “immigration reform.” Ann Coulter’s speech at the last Conservative Political Action Conference, for example, was catnip for racialists. Ann staked out the far rightward territory of respectable debate; and though she used the language of Republican electioneering, she seemed to be winking and nodding at us the entire time. . .

Whenever any issue or idea receives universal accord—when it become an assumption, when it’s taken for granted—it’s time to put it under serious scrutiny.  We should ask what an issue like immigration can tell us about ourselves—about what our goals are, and should be, and how we could best engage in political action. I hope we can do that today.
Read more

The Pareto Principle In Racial Nationalist Activism

/1 Comment/in , /by

A concept of great utility for racial nationalist activism is the so-called “Pareto Principle” or the “rule of 80/20.”  Put briefly, the Pareto Principle states that 80% of effects come from only 20% of causes.  Although the specific 80:20 ratio, or an approximation of it, is often observed with various phenomena, we should not get too focused on the specific numbers.  Instead, focus on the general principle: the large majority of effects are the result of a small minority of causes, and the majority of causes result in only a small marginal increase in the effects.  The link above gives examples which illustrate the point quite well; for example, in business, one would expect to find 20% of customers being responsible for 80% of the sales.  I believe that this principle holds true for racial nationalist activism as a whole, and also holds true for specific issues within the wider scope of racialist activism.

Does most “movement” “activism” do any good?  All the blog posting and endless commenting, online debating and flamewars, ethnic fetishism, Gnostic traditionalism, esoteric nitpicking, Hitlerian hobbyism, etc. — does it actually achieve anything?  Do the majority of “activists” actually positively and productively contribute to the cause?  Or, is it more accurate to say that activist productivity is derived from the work of a minority, that the focused work of this minority produces what little progress the “movement” has, while the vast bulk of activity is irrelevant, or even counter-productive?

We have limited resources and are up against globalist elites and organized ethnics with enormous resources at their disposal.  In this mismatched battle, only high efficiency, smart tactics, thoughtful strategy, and a focused effort on productive activity can have any hope whatsoever of achieving our objectives.  It is clear, therefore, that the Pareto Principle applies to racial nationalism. A careful consideration of how to better and more efficiently apply our efforts will be all to the good.  Can we more effectively utilize our time, money, effort, and other resources to actualize our goals in the most productive manner possible? Read more

Letter to the ADL re Merlin Miller and the American Freedom Party

/2 Comments/in /by

afp

American Freedom Party
9811 W. Charleston Blvd. Suite 2-441
Las Vegas, NV 89117

 

 

 

National Chairman: William D. Johnson, Esq. 


Executive Director: Don Wassall, Esq.


Board of Directors:

Kevin MacDonald, Ph.D.

Tom Sunic, Ph.D.

Dr. Adrian H. Krieg

Virginia Abernethy, Ph.D.

James Edwards

Alex Carmichael, Esq.

Harry Bertram 

Membership Coordinator:

Jamie Kelso

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 TO:     Anti-Defamation League

April 1, 2013

RE: Mr. Merlin Miller, AFP  

Dear Madams, Sirs: 

When depicting individuals or scholars voicing concern about the multicultural experiment in the USA, the ADL seems to be quite at ease tossing around the locution “white supremacists” (“Extremists Flock to 40th CPAC Conference”). The ADL’s apparent intent is to associate the word “supremacist” with both violence and marginal lawlessness, and then with those who identify with their European-American heritage. The ADL’s effort to smear anyone who disagrees with their view that European-American identification is illegitimate but that Jewish-American identification is legitimate betrays the thinness–if not dishonesty–of the ADL’s position. We believe that European-Americans have just as much right to identify as European-Americans and pursue our interests in the American multicultural landscape as do Jews or other groups such as African-Americans and Latino-Americans. One cannot create a multicultural society without legitimizing the identifications and interests of all groups in the society, including European Americans.  

The individual who has most recently become he target of such conceptual errors–very similar to those in the ex-Soviet and ex-Yugoslav vocabulary–is my friend and colleague, the 2012 AFP presidential nominee, Mr. Merlin Miller. Aside from the fact that Mr. Miller, a West Point graduate and military veteran, is not a “supremacist” of any kind, he is a supremely qualified artist and accomplished movie maker who is concerned with the wellbeing of America. 

Neither Mr. Miller, nor our American Freedom Party advocate any kind of “supremacy,” or claim for that matter to be “supreme” leaders of other peoples or races. We are proud of our European heritage and we are aware that European Americans, like other groups, have interests. Based on our understanding of the consequences of the utopian mixture of different cultures and peoples, as occurred in the former Yugoslavia, we are deeply concerned that America is entering an age where multiethnic hatred and the balkanization will be the norm. 

If you have questions about the American Freedom Party, I’d be glad to answer them. 

Sincerely, 

Tom Sunic, PhD
AFP Board member
American Freedom Party

 

  

 

Thoughts on Secession

/532 Comments/in , /by

In a recent column, Pat Buchanan noted that secession is in the air:

While no one takes this movement as seriously as men took secession in 1861, the sentiments behind it ought not to be minimized. For they bespeak a bristling hostility to the federal government and a dislike bordering on detestation of some Americans for other Americans, as deep as it was on the day Beauregard’s guns fired on Fort Sumter. “Stirrings of Secession”

Buchanan frames the issue as part of a general trend:

The West is decomposing. British Tories seek to cut ties to the European Union. Scots want to leave Britain. Catalans vote to divorce from Spain, to which they have been wedded since the 15th century. Flemish talk of leaving Walloons behind in Belgium. Northern Europeans are weary of carrying their profligate southern brethren and muse about cutting Greece adrift and letting it float out into the Mediterranean.

And Americans are already seceding from one another — ethnically, culturally, politically. Middle-class folks flee high-tax California, as Third World immigrants, legal and illegal, pour in to partake of the cornucopia of social welfare benefits the Golden Land dispenses.

High-tax states like New York now send tens of thousands of pension checks to Empire State retirees in tax-free Florida. Communities of seniors are rising that look like replicas of the suburbs of the 1950s. People gravitate toward their own kind. Call it divorce, American-style.

Even if unsuccessful, a vigorous secession campaign in just one state would raise White consciousness, especially if explicitly linked to White interests. Huge nation-wide publicity would be generated if campaigners managed to force a referendum. It follows that this is a prime political goal for the White advocacy movement. Limited resources should be devoted to finding the best candidate state, then getting behind the secession movement. Read more

Gregory Hood’s “White Nationalist Memo”

/144 Comments/in , , /by

Right now at the Counter-Currents site, there is a superb essay by Gregory Hood called “A White Nationalist Memo to White Male Republicans.” Coming as it does on the heels of Republican Mitt Romney’s loss to non-White incumbent Barack Obama, the memo coldly informs White males that there is zero chance the Republican party is ever going to work on behalf of White male interests. Experience and the facts are undeniable, so White men had better finally accept that only a new party — no, a new NATION — is going to advance the interests of Whites — and allow them to actually survive.

Hood does an excellent job of reiterating the long list of anti-White (especially anti-White male) legislation, anti-White indoctrination and media assaults that all of us are familiar with. He drums home the point that Blacks and Hispanics are unshakably anti-White because they are focused solely on their own interests.

Hood packages his memo in the guise of a confession of a reformed Republican. He understands where reluctant White male Republicans are coming from. He was slow to face his denial problem as well. But it became just too obvious that the Republicans were NOT the party of Whites. Read more